"Weapons and weapons tactics, Self Defense, Military and Law Enforcement discussion. Home to the Bullshido Shooters. Please take your hippie gun control BS elsewhere."

The part about taking hippie gun control BS elsewhere also seems to imply, to me, that politics don't belong here in general (at least for the most part). I don't know why we have 9 pages of political discourse on this forum when it could be discussed where it belongs - Sociocide.

Sorry if I seem like a negative nancy raining on you guys parade, but this thread sucks and it's cluttering up my precious armory. I come here to talk about firearms and training, not this crap.

"Weapons and weapons tactics, Self Defense, Military and Law Enforcement discussion. Home to the Bullshido Shooters. Please take your hippie gun control BS elsewhere."

The part about taking hippie gun control BS elsewhere also seems to imply, to me, that politics don't belong here in general (at least for the most part). I don't know why we have 9 pages of political discourse on this forum when it could be discussed where it belongs - Sociocide.

Sorry if I seem like a negative nancy raining on you guys parade, but this thread sucks and it's cluttering up my precious armory. I come here to talk about firearms and training, not this crap.

Let's see, you don't get to whine and cherry pick.

"Weapons and weapons tactics, Self Defense, Military and Law Enforcement discussion. Home to the Bullshido Shooters. Please take your hippie gun control BS elsewhere."

Is this a law enforcement or lack there of discussion? Yes. Have cops and shooters posted in this discussion? Yes.
Is this a discussion about Self defense? Yes.

I could very easily be wrong . . . but my gut feeling was a general worry about the use of no knock raids and their doubly speculative legal grounds (its done without evidence AND on an assumption of what they would do to protect/destroy/hide said unproven evidence) to intentionally bully targeted groups or people? There have been several of these no knock raids where it was simply wrong. (
)

Now EVEN if it is/has never been intentionally used against someone/group for no reason (for the record i AM NOT suggesting it has) I can understand how this legal discussion comes up.
I am not anti-police at all yet I can understand/sympathize with the idea of IF YOU WERE TARGETED FOR NO REASON being able to defend your self/home/animals/family without it turning into WACO because you killed a (unlawfully entering police officer who was intent and given order to kill/subdue anything that resist regardless of whether it may or may not be correct) cop.
BUT . . . . I absolutely understand the problem with this is HOW WOULD YOU EVER KNOW THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LAWFULLY acting cop entering your house on a lawful search for REAL evidence. (and yes I absolutely can see every gang member claiming such)
My 0.02$ is to maybe backtrack on the allowance and acceptability of conducting a raid (and arresting ANYONE including in our theatres or war.) without providing the same evidence in court we have always required in a western law state? (and CERTAINLY remove the double assumption legal system we have employed such as ASSUMING the ASSUMED evidence will be hidden/resisted being found from a regular search/ time square bomber situation claiming a bomb that COULD NOT HAVE WORKED and DID NOT work is just as teh ultra deadly because of intent.)

There is a lot of focus on no-knock raids. The law seems to provide/affirm at the local level for a citizens right to self-defense. This overlooks a probability that even if you only have a golf club and are 20 feet away from the officers you will most likely be shot dead.

Does anyone think it speaks to a bigger issue that just no-knock raids?

Surely some reform in police/DEA tactics would be more appropriate if the issue is that pressing, rather than what seems to amount to "ok, shoot em back I guess".

Should the legislature be in the business of pitting the citizenry and LE against each other? Was that their only recourse? Would they have done this under Bush? Election games, or what?

I agree and you have made several good points. I believe the problem stems from the increasingly specious legal basis for arrest/search/detention. It is one thing to claim that the reprocussion to being harrassed by police (like say you were a minority youth searched on the street or traffic stop frequently) it is DIFFICULT to allow LEGAL complaints/resistance (such as filing complaint/ claiming profiling etc) I MAY be wrong but i believe the difficulty in this situation is that;
Due to the TRIPLE unique onus (They MUST have illegal stuff so warrant isn't needed/ They also MUST be prepped to actively resist/ ANy resistance is ILLEGAL resistance) it is much more difficult than usual because a LEGAL repocussion will not DO ANYTHING. For instance i own 3 dogs (on my parents farm) i possess no firearms and no illegal activities are permitted near my residence . . . I understand you are saying 'we should have a more legal disagreement with the policy rather than allow citizen to defend against it' But I believe the problem with 'no-knock-raids' is how many assumptions are made by the police/swat. My only reason I disagree with your point is; If a no-knock-raid was performed at one of my homes A) my dogs would be killed (they are trained to 'not appreciate' people with aggressive body language that have not entered the property with my notice). B)my family/loved ones would be in needless jeopardy (if they reached for something too quickly or panicked I believe the risk is frighteningly high that one of these part time troopers that thinks they are saving the world and are not willing to put themselves at combat risk to do so would fire first and decide if they were in danger of death later.) C)[many people may disagree with this one] I am not willing to allow ALL of my possessions and actions to pass through the government filter of 'legal or not'. After the 'time square fizz bomb' situation i decided that i am not prepared nor willing to allow the government an opportunity to reverse the onus on my LEGAL activities forcing me to somehow prove that NON-ILLEGAL goods are not GOING to be used in the HYPOTHETICAL situation in the future .. . (all they have to argue is your 'character and intent' and that is an IMPOSSIBLE legal arguement)